|
www.kevacho.com
©2002-2024
Kevin Michael Vance
Writer - Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Go Back To Reviews
Title: The Fellowship of the Rings, The Two Towers
Director: Peter Jackson
Year: 2002
Reviewed: July 19, 2003
| Rating: |
|
 | |
| |
 | |
| |
Birthday Cake-Second Highest Rating |
[Rating Definitions]
|
|
|
I give "The Two Towers" a Birthday Cake rating.
Now before you attempt to wield the one ring against me, and or try to sick your "Cave Troll" on me, let me explain myself. I did not like "Two Towers", in fact, and I realize I am in a great minority in saying this, I think "Two Towers" is a bad movie. This dislike doesn't come from some over analytical interpreatation of the book. I have read J.R.R. Tolkiens trilogy, and I found them entertaining; albeit I think George R.R. Martin's series "A Song of Ice and Fire" is a far better read. Nor is this some hate-driven diatribe against all things "fantasy". I loved the first film. As a matter of fact I think there has not been a "fantasy" film like "The Fellowship of the Ring"… ever. Not even "Excalibur" can equal "Fellowships" passion and intensity. What I'm commenting on is the undeniably jarring mistakes rife throughout "Two Towers", mistakes Peter Jackson somehow avoided completely in the first film.
First, emotionally, "Two Towers" is stunted in comparison to the "Fellowship". Think about Gandalf's fall into darkness. Think of Boromir's heart wrenching death scene (which had me tearing up). Think Sam's earnest soliloquy in the boat to Frodo. These are scenes and realities, which leveled the first film far above anything that might be construed as a "fantasy" film. "Two Towers" has none of this. The elf's death on the wall of Helm's Deep was laughable at best. And by the way, who the hell was he? He had a miniscule part in "Fellowship", if that. It almost appeared as if Peter Jackson was peddling backwards, trying to retrace steps he had already taken in the first film. The comedy was hackneyed and trite. When Gimli fell off his horse, I almost thought "Pee Wee Herman" would pop up and say, "I meant to do that." And guess what? In a sense, he did. Legolas, the coolest elf around, riding a shield down a flight of stairs like a skateboard… fucking ridiculous.
Oh… and by the way, why weren't we told in the first film that the cloaks the "Fellowship" got from "Galadriel" in "Lothlorien" assumed the shape and color of a perfect boulder when hiding two hobbits from bad men in nasty mascara?
Secondly, in the first film Peter Jackson went to great lengths to give it a feel of reality, even though the story is liberally entrenched in an inherent mystical quality. The fight scenes were bloody and brutal, the land foreboding, the situation grim. You got a sense of urgency, and a dire feeling of dread. This, urgency is totally lacking from the second film. Gandalf comes back and he's half the man, and character I might ad, he was in the first film. In the "Fellowship" Aragon fought for his life against one Uruk-Hai… and he nearly lost it, leaving the battle bloodied and shaken. In the "Two Towers", he takes on not just one Uruk-Hai, but thousands, rising mind you from this superhuman escapade without nearly a scratch or a bruise, defeating every bit of realism Peter Jackson had so deftly wrought in "The Fellowship of the Ring".
Third, this, essentially, is an Act II; which brings me to my greatest reason for not liking the film. You must play it like an Act II! Think, and this is the greatest example, "Empire Strikes Back". Now that is an Act II! I remember arguing for years about whether or not "Han Solo" was still alive in all that "Carbonite", and whether or not "Darth Vader" was indeed, "Luke's" father. Take any movie… I mean it, any movie and look at the Act II. It never ends on a high note. ALIENS- "Ripley's" psuedo love interest "Hicks" is horribly wounded and she loses "Newt". RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK- "Indi" loses the ark, and the girl. GLADIATOR- "General Maximus" escapes, his loyal servant is killed, and he's captured yet again. You just do not end an Act II the way "Two Towers" ended. This, people, is simply good drama. "Two Towers" ending was asinine and insouciant in the extreme. And, strangely enough, there's a much, much better ending in the book. One that would have made a lot more sense, and left the audience with a much more powerful feeling of "not knowing" than the one they so amateurishly chose. I for one have never understood Hollywood's idea that they can take a book like "The Two Towers", change the ending, and think that they did it better, or even did it justice.
The only thing of any worth in "Two Towers" (and ironically this was the one thing I thought I'd hate the most) was the entirely CGI character of "Gollum", or "Smeagal" to his friends. It is a crime than Andy Serkis didn't get an Oscar nomination for his performance.
Now, I've always liked Peter Jackson (two of my favorite movies of his are "Dead Alive" and "Heavenly Creatures"). Granted, these are incredibly difficult books to bring to life on screen. But it looks to me as if Peter Jackson slept through this one, or simply got tired and lazy.
|
|
